Pelosi says Trump has admitted to bribery as impeachment probe intensifies

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

You characterize the testimony of Kurt Volker. How do I argue if your characterization is true or false? 

 

"He tore the idea of the whole basis of the fake "biden scandal" apart and then explained it for what it is".

 

That is simply your characterization of the testimony. 

 

"Fake allegations."

 

The allegations themselves can't be fake. You either have an allegation or you don't. Here let me show you : Hunter Biden had zero experience in Ukraine is that true or false? Hunter Biden had zero experience in the gas industry, is that true or false? Hunter Biden made well over $50,000 USD per month from being on that board. True or False. This happened at the same time that Burisma was being looked at for corruption from within Ukraine. True or False? Hunter Biden less then one year previous to being put on the board, had tested postive for cocaine in the United States Naval Reserve, and was removed and was therefore denied his Officer Commission. Yet he is put on a Ukraine Board to do what? Collect money!

 

Now the allegation there is that this is corruption.The Allegation is not false. From the above it seems like this should at least be investigated. As I have never seen anything like this ever, nothing even comes close, I try to stretch, and think back, over all the Presidential administrations I can remember, Do I remember any kind "APPEARANCE" of financial graft as this? No I don't.  Now that is simply my own truth, if you can recall other examples that dwarf this- please do point them out. 

 

It may be OK to you, but it's NOT OK to me. I don't even see the need for an investigation, as I can see it all right in front of me. But an investigation is neccessarry to bring the proper charges. If no charges are brought I see it as an indictment of the Justice system of the USA. But that last bit of course is my characterization - which of course is just a characterization and cannot be proven true or false, as its only an opinion. 

Because there is absolutely no valid evidence that Joseph Biden did anything to secure Hunter Biden his job. There is no valid evidence that Joseph Biden pushed anti corruption measures to protect Hunter Biden. Hunter Biden is sleazy. Being sleazy ain't criminal.

 

But you've never seen anything like this? How about a President who refuses to put his holdings in a blind trust? A President whose company accepts large amounts of money from foreign nations to stay at his hotels and resorts? Often these reservations are no shows but the money is paid anyway. Even in the phone call with Zelensky, Zelensky tells Trump that he has stayed at his hotel and compliments him on it. Ya think he was just doing that to make conversation? A president whose companies are still doing business with foreign nationals in highly corrupt nations. Now that's something that's never been seen before. So we don't even have to go into the dealings of his sleazy children and son-in-law to make a connection to Trump. Not only is Trump's conduct sleazy, it's possibly unconstitutional.

[WalkingOrders]

8 hours ago, Kelsall said:

He will NOT be impeached.  Schiff is backpedaling and a key Dem is bailing and asking others to follow. 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-dem-reverses-course-on-impeachment-as-polls-show-declining-support-i-want-to-censure

 

As the term impeachment itself seems to be confused here often (Not by you) it's worth saying that the Democrats certainly have the ability to Impeach, but then it is sent to the Senate, but this is a matter of timing, and they realize that once it hits the Senate - the game they have played is over. They have no control of events in the Senate. And a trial in the senate, with 50/50 split amongst the US population, and Repubicans able to control, isn't something that is going to go very well for them politically, in my view. If the Biden accusations get any traction, if Schiff is called to testify, if Hunter Biden is called to testify, its a disaster for them. Add to that subpoena of documents related to the DNC in Ukraine etc etc. They have created their own grave if you ask me. Good.

[WalkingOrders]

14 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Because there is absolutely no valid evidence that Joseph Biden did anything to secure Hunter Biden his job. There is no valid evidence that Joseph Biden pushed anti corruption measures to protect Hunter Biden. Hunter Biden is sleazy. Being sleazy ain't criminal.

 

But you've never seen anything like this? How about a President who refuses to put his holdings in a blind trust? A President whose company accepts large amounts of money from foreign nations to stay at his hotels and resorts? Often these reservations are no shows but the money is paid anyway. Even in the phone call with Zelensky, Zelensky tells Trump that he has stayed at his hotel and compliments him on it. Ya think he was just doing that to make conversation? A president whose companies are still doing business with foreign nationals in highly corrupt nations. Now that's something that's never been seen before. So we don't even have to go into the dealings of his sleazy children and son-in-law to make a connection to Trump. Not only is Trump's conduct sleazy, it's possibly unconstitutional.

All of your commentary about hotels is ludicrous. The President does not even take a salary. IF anything he has lost money from being President, and that is pretty obvious. I don't remember a President who didn't simply rise up through the political ranks, do you? HOw much money did Barack Obama have before he was President? How much does he have now? Yes, I have never seen anything like this. Even you are stretching very hard not to see it. What do you mean "valid" evidence? What validates evidence?  As far as there being no evidence that Biden did anything to secure the position, there has been no investigation into Biden records or state department records in that regard. We know that Lawyers for Burisma visited the State department and even wrote that Hunter Biden on the board was reason that any investigations into Burisma should not happen.

 

The sad thing is this, you have all the evidence in the world regarding Hunter Biden right in front of you, but refuse to see it. Because You are a true believer? I am sorry, but all I see in Trump is a request that obvious corruption involving the Bidens be looked into, as it is definately something that affects the United States. Why? Well I saw this film about Joe Biden firing a prosecutur in a foreign country investigating his own son, who is being paid millions. You really think this doesn't warrant an investigation at least?

[Sujo]

15 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

All of your commentary about hotels is ludicrous. The President does not even take a salary. IF anything he has lost money from being President, and that is pretty obvious. I don't remember a President who didn't simply rise up through the political ranks, do you? HOw much money did Barack Obama have before he was President? How much does he have now? Yes, I have never seen anything like this. Even you are stretching very hard not to see it. What do you mean "valid" evidence? What validates evidence?  As far as there being no evidence that Biden did anything to secure the position, there has been no investigation into Biden records or state department records in that regard. We know that Lawyers for Burisma visited the State department and even wrote that Hunter Biden on the board was reason that any investigations into Burisma should not happen.

 

The sad thing is this, you have all the evidence in the world regarding Hunter Biden right in front of you, but refuse to see it. Because You are a true believer? I am sorry, but all I see in Trump is a request that obvious corruption involving the Bidens be looked into, as it is definately something that affects the United States. Why? Well I saw this film about Joe Biden firing a prosecutur in a foreign country investigating his own son, who is being paid millions. You really think this doesn't warrant an investigation at least?

What is the evidence against hunter biden?

[WalkingOrders]

9 minutes ago, Sujo said:

What is the evidence against hunter biden?

A VP is named point man on Ukraine Policy by the President.  Part of US policy at this time is to ask Ukraine to increase Gas production to economically hurt the Russians. During this time his son is put on a board of a Ukrainian gas company. His son who is put on this board, less then 1 year earlier was booted from the USNR for testing positive for cocaine, and he has no knowledge of Ukraine, does not speak Ukrainian, and has zero knowledge of the gas business. The VP is on tape saying that he had a Ukrainian prosecutor fired that just happened to be investigating Burisma, the same company in which is son sits on the board. The pay is $85,000 a month.  The VP literally stated on tape, that if they did not fire the prosecutor looking into Burisma that he would hold up millions in US aid. The head of the Company Burisma was under investigation for selling himself gas lease deals, made available to him through is previous Government position. State department records from the USA show that Burisma attorneys visited the State Department in the USA and requested assistance in dropping any investigation and they used the name Hunter Biden in their request. NOW, let me ask you.... on the face of it..... does this look like something worthy of investigating? Does it seem OK to you? Would you be interested in phone records between Hunter/Joe Biden and Ukrainians? Between the state department and Joe Biden re Burisma? Between Hunter Biden and Burisma? Are you interested in what Hunter Biden did for this money? Any interest at all? Opening an investigation would answer your question wouldn't it?

[rabas]

25 minutes ago, Sujo said:

What is the evidence against hunter biden?

Exactly what did Hunter Biden do to receive millions of dollars for doing nothing?  The most avoided question of the century. 

[stevenl]

13 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

A VP is named point man on Ukraine Policy by the President.  Part of US policy at this time is to ask Ukraine to increase Gas production to economically hurt the Russians. During this time his son is put on a board of a Ukrainian gas company. His son who is put on this board, less then 1 year earlier was booted from the USNR for testing positive for cocaine, and he has no knowledge of Ukraine, does not speak Ukrainian, and has zero knowledge of the gas business. The VP is on tape saying that he had a Ukrainian prosecutor fired that just happened to be investigating Burisma, the same company in which is son sits on the board. The pay is $85,000 a month.  The VP literally stated on tape, that if they did not fire the prosecutor looking into Burisma that he would hold up millions in US aid. The head of the Company Burisma was under investigation for selling himself gas lease deals, made available to him through is previous Government position. State department records from the USA show that Burisma attorneys visited the State Department in the USA and requested assistance in dropping any investigation and they used the name Hunter Biden in their request. NOW, let me ask you.... on the face of it..... does this look like something worthy of investigating? Does it seem OK to you? Would you be interested in phone records between Hunter/Joe Biden and Ukrainians? Between the state department and Joe Biden re Burisma? Between Hunter Biden and Burisma? Are you interested in what Hunter Biden did for this money? Any interest at all? Opening an investigation would answer your question wouldn't it?

As mentioned many times already, please have the DoJ investigate. 

Now I tell you they won't, because they know there is nothing there, so it would take away there 'but but but' defense.

[WalkingOrders]

8 minutes ago, stevenl said:

As mentioned many times already, please have the DoJ investigate. 

Now I tell you they won't, because they know there is nothing there, so it would take away there 'but but but' defense.

Either you think it reasonable that he be investigated or you don't. 

[bristolboy]

56 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

All of your commentary about hotels is ludicrous. The President does not even take a salary. IF anything he has lost money from being President, and that is pretty obvious. I don't remember a President who didn't simply rise up through the political ranks, do you? HOw much money did Barack Obama have before he was President? How much does he have now? Yes, I have never seen anything like this. Even you are stretching very hard not to see it. What do you mean "valid" evidence? What validates evidence?  As far as there being no evidence that Biden did anything to secure the position, there has been no investigation into Biden records or state department records in that regard. We know that Lawyers for Burisma visited the State department and even wrote that Hunter Biden on the board was reason that any investigations into Burisma should not happen.

 

The sad thing is this, you have all the evidence in the world regarding Hunter Biden right in front of you, but refuse to see it. Because You are a true believer? I am sorry, but all I see in Trump is a request that obvious corruption involving the Bidens be looked into, as it is definately something that affects the United States. Why? Well I saw this film about Joe Biden firing a prosecutur in a foreign country investigating his own son, who is being paid millions. You really think this doesn't warrant an investigation at least?

Once again, Trump did not put his holdings into a blind trust. For ethical reasons this is required for the head of every cabinet department. You know why it's not required of the President? Because when the law was written no one could imagine a president being so greedy and venial. But if he wants to put himself above suspicion, what's to stop him from accepting payments from foreign governments?

But if you think that there is valid evidence for Biden, then there is also valid evidence for another investigation of Trump. Just around the time that Trump decided not to put the chinese corporation ZTE out of business, the Chinese government showered Ivanka with lots of trademarks. Trademarks are not easy to get out of the Chinese government. Suspicious, no? What's worse, his son-in-law got bailed out of a terrible long standing investment with sweetheart terms. At least some of that money came from the Qatari government's investment fund. No one has disclosed where the rest of hit came from.  Now I don't think that's sufficient grounds for an investigation. It's just sleazy.

And once again you repeat the lie that Shokin was investigating Hunter Biden. The only evidence for that is Shokin's affidavit. An affidavit made out on behalf of Dmytro Firtash, a corrupt oligarch fighting extradition to the USA. An affidavit obtained by Rudolph Giuliani and his 2 now indicted associates. Shokin's deputy, the Ukrainian parliament, a major anti-corruption NGO all say that this is a lie.  And the record shows that Shokin wasn't going after any of the oligarchs. So why would he have been singling out just Burisma? His lack of results in going after corruption is why not just the USA, but the EU, the IMF, and the World Bank wanted him gone. It's indisputable that Biden was carrying out US policy.

[WalkingOrders]

4 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Once again, Trump did not put his holdings into a blind trust. For ethical reasons this is required for the head of every cabinet department. You know why it's not required of the President? Because when the law was written no one could imagine a president being so greedy and venial. But if he wants to put himself above suspicion, what's to stop him from accepting payments from foreign governments?

But if you think that there is valid evidence for Biden, then there is also valid evidence for another investigation of Trump. Just around the time that Trump decided not to put the chinese corporation ZTE out of business, the Chinese government showered Ivanka with lots of trademarks. Trademarks are not easy to get out of the Chinese government. Suspicious, no? What's worse, his son-in-law got bailed out of a terrible long standing investment with sweetheart terms. At least some of that money came from the Qatari government's investment fund. No one has disclosed where the rest of hit came from.  Now I don't think that's sufficient grounds for an investigation. It's just sleazy.

And once again you repeat the lie that Shokin was investigating Hunter Biden. The only evidence for that is Shokin's affidavit. An affidavit made out on behalf of Dmytro Firtash, a corrupt oligarch fighting extradition to the USA. An affidavit obtained by Rudolph Giuliani and his 2 now indicted associates. Shokin's deputy, the Ukrainian parliament, a major anti-corruption NGO all say that this is a lie.  And the record shows that Shokin wasn't going after any of the oligarchs. So why would he have been singling out just Burisma? His lack of results in going after corruption is why not just the USA, but the EU, the IMF, and the World Bank wanted him gone. It's indisputable that Biden was carrying out US policy.

My post put forward a very easy question for you to answer . Directly to my post. Instead you bring up a whole lot about something else. So stop . Just stop for a moment and look me in the eye, and answer the question like a man. Based on my post,  do you think that Biden should be investigated? That's it. YES OR NO, and then stand or fall on the merits of your argument instead of calling me a liar etc and bringing up 10 subjects at one time in your post. Is there a reason you keep attacking me personally in my posts, especially ones that are not in rebuttal to you? Is this personal? Do you feel its a manner of honor to be decided? Do you want to meet and have at it? If you disagree just say so. Stand on your opinion. I have repeated no lies. And again, its really simple. In your eyes, on this case, nothing about anything else....just this, you have no questions at all about what Hunter Biden was doing for his money? You have no questions about why he was able to be on a board getting paid 85K a month despite recently being booted from the USNR for cocaine positive urinalysis and losing his Officer commisison? No questions? None? That is your position, yes or NO? Just own it and cut the BS man.

[candide]

11 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

My post put forward a very easy question for you to answer . Directly to my post. Instead you bring up a whole lot about something else. So stop . Just stop for a moment and look me in the eye, and answer the question like a man. Based on my post,  do you think that Biden should be investigated? That's it. YES OR NO, and then stand or fall on the merits of your argument instead of calling me a liar etc and bringing up 10 subjects at one time in your post. Is there a reason you keep attacking me personally in my posts, especially ones that are not in rebuttal to you? Is this personal? Do you feel its a manner of honor to be decided? Do you want to meet and have at it? If you disagree just say so. Stand on your opinion. I have repeated no lies. And again, its really simple. In your eyes, on this case, nothing about anything else....just this, you have no questions at all about what Hunter Biden was doing for his money? You have no questions about why he was able to be on a board getting paid 85K a month despite recently being booted from the USNR for cocaine positive urinalysis and losing his Officer commisison? No questions? None? That is your position, yes or NO? Just own it and cut the BS man.

Please allow me to introduce myself in the discussion. You claim you don't repeat lies and yet in your previous post you just repeated a big lie. There has never been any investigation into Hunter Biden in Ukraine. That's a blatant and conscious alteration of truth to support your propaganda effort. There have been investigations into Burisma's owner and they all concern events that occured before Burisma hired Hunter.

Now as concerns Burisma, we have provided all possible links: quotes from EU officials, and even IMF's Lagarde threatening to withold funds and asking for Shokin to be fired, quotes from Ukraine officials stating that there was no investigation of Burisma, quotes from US ambassador complaining that Burisma's boss was not investigated by Shokin, testimonies under oath from State Department officials, etc... when we do that we usually get no precise reply and just see the same phony claim repeated over and over by Trump's supporters.

 

About Bidens (one, or both if you like), I give you a clue: Do you think that Trump's sycophant (Barr) has not already screened all available information to check whether there it is legally possible to open an investigation? Could it be that there is not enough evidence to even launch an investigation?

 

[sirineou]

35 minutes ago, candide said:

Please allow me to introduce myself in the discussion. You claim you don't repeat lies and yet in your previous post you just repeated a big lie. There has never been any investigation into Hunter Biden in Ukraine. That's a blatant and conscious alteration of truth to support your propaganda effort. There have been investigations into Burisma's owner and they all concern events that occured before Burisma hired Hunter.

Now as concerns Burisma, we have provided all possible links: quotes from EU officials, and even IMF's Lagarde threatening to withold funds and asking for Shokin to be fired, quotes from Ukraine officials stating that there was no investigation of Burisma, quotes from US ambassador complaining that Burisma's boss was not investigated by Shokin, testimonies under oath from State Department officials, etc... when we do that we usually get no precise reply and just see the same phony claim repeated over and over by Trump's supporters.

 

About Bidens (one, or both if you like), I give you a clue: Do you think that Trump's sycophant (Barr) has not already screened all available information to check whether there it is legally possible to open an investigation? Could it be that there is not enough evidence to even launch an investigation?

 

Excellent, articulate and to the point  reply.

But are you going to be " a man" and "meet and have at it? " as proposed by the poster you are replying too, and if so will there be video tape? 

[candide]

42 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Excellent, articulate and to the point  reply.

But are you going to be " a man" and "meet and have at it? " as proposed by the poster you are replying too, and if so will there be video tape? 

You need to ask Bristolboy. I sometimes enjoy interfering in other's affairs, but not to that extent! ????

[sirineou]

31 minutes ago, candide said:

You need to ask Bristolboy. I sometimes enjoy interfering in other's affairs, but not to that extent! ????

I didn't follow the replies  that far. I see now that he was not calling you out. 

  I think bristolboy can handle himself and don't need any of our help but perhaps you can serve  a referee and videotape the Tumble in the jungle , As old guys in Isaan get so little entertainment now days .

 

Of course I am kidding and was ridiculing the "meet and have at it? " statement.

[mike787]

Well, now that the US Gov admitted to bribery you think Thailand could learn anything.

[stevenl]

7 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

You know nothing of Bill Barr. If you did you would not call him a sycophant. How about you go right at the questions I earlier proposed. Here I will give them to you again. Do you have any question in your own mind, without having to quote a bazillion references, to various events, as to what was Hunter Biden's job over there a Burisma? A man who less then a year previous was booted from the United States Naval Reserve Officer Commissioning program for testing positive for cocaine? A man with no previous experience in Ukrainian affiars? A man with no experience in gas and oil? Do you have any questions as to exactly what his job was on that board? What expertise it was that he brought? Do you have any question specifically as to what job he had other then to pick up $85,000.00 every month? I mean why him? Why was he there? Do you think he had to show a resume? Did it have something to do with U.S. policy? These are pretty straight forward questions to ask. I mean they are simple and normal questions that would have to be on anyone's mind. Regardless of who is the current President of the United States, they are questions that I think are on the mind of most Americans.

Why do you think Barr is not answering those questions?

[Scott]

Troll post with misinformation removed.  

 

[candide]

5 hours ago, stevenl said:

Why do you think Barr is not answering those questions?

That was exactly my point. Barr is eager to help Trump, as shown by the launch of the FISA investigation. However, he is not stupid enough to do something illegal. So why is Barr doing nothing?

That's the right question to ask, rather than the MSM conspiracy B.S..

[Sujo]

On 11/27/2019 at 10:22 AM, WalkingOrders said:

Either you think it reasonable that he be investigated or you don't. 

he already was investigated. Found nothing.

[WalkingOrders]

On 11/28/2019 at 4:01 AM, sirineou said:

Of course I am kidding and was ridiculing the "meet and have at it? " statement.

Yeah same here.

[WalkingOrders]

3 hours ago, candide said:

If the US law has been broken, let's open an investigation.

I belive you open an investigation if their is reasonable suspicion that a law has been broken, if its determined a law has been broken then you have a crime. But glad to see you support an investigation, they have opened now in the Senate. As far as what Barr is doing or Durham, hard to say, some overlap regarding DNC in Ukraine I assume.

[metisdead]

A baiting troll post has been removed. 

[SchopenhauersGhost]

Hunter Biden subterfuge

[WalkingOrders]

1 minute ago, Becker said:

I think at this point in time it's useful to remind you about the topic title: "Pelosi says Trump has admitted to bribery as impeachment probe intensifies".

Please note the name Trump, not Biden. Hope that clears up your profound confusion.

If only the entire acusation about Trump didn't revolve around his mentioning of Burisma and Biden in his phone call indicating that perhaps the President of the United States thought something might be worthy of investigating. But thank you for pointing that out to me. So to set the record straight - Potential corruption revolving around reports of Biden and his son, about a DNC Democrat operative in Ukraine around last election time, and the other thing with Crowdstrike. Everyone calls the last one a conspiracy theory, but I do have questions about why the FBI would outsource such an investigation. It seems odd to me. But I make no claims regarding Crowdstrike theories. But Biden? He sort of opened it by bragging on camera. Trump isn't a great intellectual but considering what he has been through, If I faced the same, I would be the most paranoid man on earth I think. I wait for Bill Barr and Durham investigations, and the now opened Senate investigations let's see where this goes.

 

You see I have a serious distaste for a Political party that claimed that the President of the United States of America is a Russian spy, in Putin's pocket, who hired prostitutes to P*** on a hotel bed used by the previous President and 1st Lady of the United States. Presumably out of pure hatred he did that. You see all of that was an invention. A complete and total fabrication. A first in US politics. An absolute first. Business can never be the same now. A party calling for fundamental changes to the constitution of the United States because they lost an election frightens me very much. I want the guilty jailed. The President is NOT going to be removed from office I will tell you that much. And presume he will win election. But it's not Trump they are trying to remove. They don't care about Trump, they would be demonizing Pence right now if he was President. It's policy they want to stop. We have former heads of FBI and CIA working as analysts for Television networks. Good God Almighty. That's different!

[Becker]

3 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

You see I have a serious distaste for a Political party that claimed that the President of the United States of America is a Russian spy, in Putin's pocket, who hired prostitutes to P*** on a hotel bed used by the previous President and 1st Lady of the United States. Presumably out of pure hatred he did that. You see all of that was an invention. A complete and total fabrication. A first in US politics. An absolute first. Business can never be the same now. A party calling for fundamental changes to the constitution of the United States because they lost an election frightens me very much. I want the guilty jailed. The President is NOT going to be removed from office I will tell you that much. And presume he will win election. But it's not Trump they are trying to remove. They don't care about Trump, they would be demonizing Pence right now if he was President. It's policy they want to stop. We have former heads of FBI and CIA working as analysts for Television networks. Good God Almighty. That's different!

"You see I have a serious distaste for a Political party that claimed that the President of the United States of America is a Russian spy, in Putin's pocket....."

And that is very likely the truth.

 

"You see all of that was an invention. A complete and total fabrication."

That's an assumption, not a fact.

 

"A party calling for fundamental changes to the constitution of the United States because they lost an election frightens me very much. I want the guilty jailed."

I see you're confused about this as well. Calling for changes to the constitution is not a crime....really. Hope this helps you.

 

"The President is NOT going to be removed from office I will tell you that much."

Another assumption.

[candide]

50 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

Actually I took the time to put the timelines together item by item. I disagree strongly with your characterization of what is truth...and LOL! 

Just a few obsevations on Solomon's report (I did not check everything) that show how biased it is

- for some key allegations there is no source

- sometimes the source does not state what he claims: example "

Dec. 8, 2015

The New York Times publishes article stating Prosecutor General Shokin’s office is investigating Burisma Holdings and its founder Zlochecvsky". The NYT article does not mention it at all.

- some key information is inaccurate, ex. 

"Aug. 20, 2014

Ukraine Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin’s office opens criminal investigation of Burisma Holdings and Mykola Zlochevsky."

Shokin was nominated in 2015 only.

- it omits key informations to understand the case, for example that Manafort has already been under investigation by the FBI in 2014.

[WalkingOrders]

46 minutes ago, Becker said:

"You see I have a serious distaste for a Political party that claimed that the President of the United States of America is a Russian spy, in Putin's pocket....."

And that is very likely the truth.

 

"You see all of that was an invention. A complete and total fabrication."

That's an assumption, not a fact.

 

"A party calling for fundamental changes to the constitution of the United States because they lost an election frightens me very much. I want the guilty jailed."

I see you're confused about this as well. Calling for changes to the constitution is not a crime....really. Hope this helps you.

 

"The President is NOT going to be removed from office I will tell you that much."

Another assumption.

Point one: The Mueller report made no such claim. We don't have to prove we are innocent in the United States, the prosecution must prove guilt. In the case of the Mueller he could not even bring a charge.

Point Two - You tell me if I say Trump did not do the horrible things the Dossier claimed that it is I making an assumption? You have a strange understanding of law. So anyone can make a horrible claim in public about you? And then YOU would have to prove innocence? Even you , have the nerve to say that It's an assumption and not a fact I am making regarding the most heinous of charges against Trump. No proof has ever been given man. That isn't enough for you? How does that sit with you?  A unsubstantiated claim the President hired Prostitutes to p*** in a bed used by the former President and 1st lady? That doesn't turn your stomach? And you think that's OK to claim such things with zero evidence? A total fabrication? Are you an American?

Point Three : It would take 25 Republican Senators to turn on the President. That would require some as of yet not put forward evidence of some as of yet undisclosed crime. You do understand that based on everything so far it is an absolute fact that 25 Senators are not going to turn on the President, and you can't even be sure they would have enough Democrats, as Senators are a bit more sober in this regard. So I suppose anything can happen but if you had to give percentages of probability they are not in your favor. In truth they have not even brought impeachment charges. So there is a ways to go. 

 

This is simply one long attempt to remove the President that has been going on sadly since the day he was elected. 

[WalkingOrders]

22 minutes ago, candide said:

Just a few obsevations on Solomon's report (I did not check everything) that show how biased it is

- for some key allegations there is no source

- sometimes the source does not state what he claims: example "

Dec. 8, 2015

The New York Times publishes article stating Prosecutor General Shokin’s office is investigating Burisma Holdings and its founder Zlochecvsky". The NYT article does not mention it at all.

- some key information is inaccurate, ex. 

"Aug. 20, 2014

Ukraine Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin’s office opens criminal investigation of Burisma Holdings and Mykola Zlochevsky."

Shokin was nominated in 2015 only.

- it omits key informations to understand the case, for example that Manafort has already been under investigation by the FBI in 2014.

I won't take the time to argue with you. I will let people review each of these timelines on their own and come to their own conclusions. Further I wait for the senate investigations on Biden/burisma,  the Attorney General investigation, the IG investigation, The Durham Investigation, The house Investigation on impeachment, and we will see where this all goes.

 

 

[candide]

49 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

Trump isn't a great intellectual but considering what he has been through, If I faced the same, I would be the most paranoid man on earth I think

Me too! If I had been subject to an investigation for alledged collusion with a foreign country during an election campaign, the last thing I would do is to rush to collude with another country for the next election. Anyone with a minimum of common sense would have kept a low profile.

You should blame Trump's stupidity rather than the Dems.

[Mark mark]

1 hour ago, WalkingOrders said:

Here are the questions that you might have- maybe - as an interested party: 1. What exactly was Hunter Biden being paid to do? Why would they hire a man who less than a year previous had been booted from the United States Naval Reserve for testing positive for cocaine a drug test? Why hire a guy with no Ukraine experience? No Experience in Gas and oil industry? What expertise did he bring to the table? Do these questions offend your sensibilities? Interestingly about Hunter Biden age 49 years old in his paternity suit he didn't only deny that he was the father of the child but he denied even knowing the Mother. Wow, a man 49, denies he even knew the Mom? And you think he did that without Daddy's advice? And when did he have this tryst? WHILE he was sleeping with his dead brothers widow. And that getting booted from the USNR? He and Daddy both claimed he must have had his drink spiked. of course later his cocaine habit became known so that kind of goes out the window. But why mention such things? They speak to the character of Father and Son alike. Forget for a moment that Trump is President. Just let all that sink in. Now, What exactly was his job other then to collect a bag of money? It's a fair question.

It still doesn't make Trump any Innocent, Like Joe Biden is a Minnow !!! ... And Trump Is ? Well I had better not say.